Study Details
Francis, K., Woodford, M., and Kelsey, M. (2015). “Evaluation of the Teen Outreach Program in Hennepin County, MN: Findings from the Replication of an Evidence-Based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.” Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Teen Outreach Program (TOP)
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
1196
2
15
Study Findings
A separate recent study evaluated the program among a younger sample of middle- and high-school students in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The study used a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 61 middle and high schools. In each participating school, students were randomly assigned by teacher to either a treatment group that received the program or a control group that provided the regular school instruction. Surveys were administered before the program started (baseline), and again three and 15 months after the program ended.
The study findings failed to replicate the favorable impact on sexual activity rates found in the separate study by Daley et al. (2015). In particular, the study found that students in the treatment group were no less likely than students in the control group to report ever having had sex (odds ratio = 1.33 for the 3-month follow-up survey, odds ratio = 3.14 for the 15-month follow-up survey). The study also examined program impacts on measures of recent sexual activity and recent unprotected sexual activity. The study found no statistically significant impacts on these outcomes for either follow-up survey. The study did not measure program impacts on pregnancy.
NA = Not available. This means the authors did not report the information in the manuscripts associated with the studies we reviewed.
a This information was not available whenever authors did not report information for the treatment and comparison groups separately on outcome means, standard deviations, and/or sample sizes.
b Authors reported that the program effect (impact) estimate is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test.
c For some outcomes, having less of that outcome is favorable. In those cases, an effect with a negative sign is favorable to the treatment group (that is, the treatment group had a more favorable outcome than the comparison group, on average).
d An effect shows credibly estimated, statistically significant evidence whenever it has a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test, includes the appropriate adjustment for clustering (if applicable), and it is not based on an endogenous subgroup.